Acknowledgment of liability extends limitation only for existing claims; arbitrator cannot award time-barred or excess amounts.

An acknowledgment of liability extends limitation only for a subsisting claim actually admitted, so part-payment and correspondence preserved time only for claims already pending or existing when the acknowledgment was made; fresh claims first raised later remained time-barred. An arbitrator cannot enlarge the claim beyond the claim statement or grant relief on time-barred or unclaimed items, but a separable valid portion of the award may be sustained. The award was therefore upheld only to the extent of the claims within limitation, with the excess and barred components rejected and the award reduced accordingly.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the claims made before the arbitrator were barred by limitation, and whether the acknowledgment and part-payment extended limitation only for the existing or pending claims; (ii) Whether the arbitrator exceeded jurisdiction or committed legal misconduct by awarding amounts beyond the claim statement and by allowing time-barred or unclaimed items.

Issue (i): Whether the claims made before the arbitrator were barred by limitation, and whether the acknowledgment and part-payment extended limitation only for the existing or pending claims.

Analysis: The cause of action for the contractual claim arose when the final bill was signed under protest. A writing amounts to an acknowledgment only if it admits a subsisting liability and the jural relationship between the parties. The letter calling for scrutiny of pending claims and expressing an intention to settle them constituted an acknowledgment, and the subsequent part-payment also extended limitation. But that extension operated only for the claims that were already pending or existing when the acknowledgment and payment were made. Fresh claims introduced for the first time in the later claim statement were outside the acknowledged liability and could not be carried forward by the earlier acknowledgment.

Conclusion: The claim was within time only to the extent of the pre-existing or pending claims acknowledged earlier; the fresh claims were barred by limitation.

Issue (ii): Whether the arbitrator exceeded jurisdiction or committed legal misconduct by awarding amounts beyond the claim statement and by allowing time-barred or unclaimed items.

Analysis: An arbitrator cannot enlarge the claim by proceeding on a factual basis contrary to the unamended claim statement, cannot award sums in excess of the amount claimed, and cannot grant relief on time-barred items. However, the valid part of the award, which is separable from the invalid part, may be upheld. Applying that principle, only the portion of the award referable to the claims that were alive within limitation and legitimately before the arbitrator could stand.

Conclusion: The arbitrator acted in excess of jurisdiction and with legal misconduct to the extent of the time-barred and excess awards, but the separable valid portion of the award was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The award and decree were sustained only to the extent of the valid, severable claims, and the appeals were allowed in part with the award reduced accordingly and interest directed on the upheld amount.

Ratio Decidendi: An acknowledgment of liability extends limitation only for the subsisting claim actually acknowledged, and an arbitrator cannot award amounts beyond the claim or on time-barred fresh claims, though the valid severable portion of the award may still be sustained.

---